On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 7:15 AM Vincent Chen <vincent.c...@sifive.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:50 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walms...@sifive.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, Anup Patel wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 1:30 PM Vincent Chen <vincent.c...@sifive.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +static inline void fstate_off(struct task_struct *task,
> > > > + struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > > +{
> > > > + regs->sstatus = (regs->sstatus & ~(SR_FS)) | SR_FS_OFF;
> > >
> > > The SR_FS_OFF is 0x0 so no need for ORing it.
> >
> > That one looks OK to me, since it makes it more obvious to humans what's
> > happening here - reviewers won't need to know that "off" is 0x0. The
> > compiler should drop it internally, so it won't affect the generated
> > code.
> >
> Thanks for Paul's comment
> My thought is the same as Paul.
>
>
> > > Apart from above minor comment, looks good to me.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Anup Patel <a...@brainfault.org>
> >
> > Will add your Reviewed-by: tag - let us know if you want me to drop it or
> > caveat it.
> >
> >
> > - Paul
>
> Dear Anup,
> I suppose you can accept our thought about using the SR_FS_OFF flag
> because I didn't receive any reply from you.
> Thanks for your review and comments.
No problem, go ahead without dropping SR_FS_OFF flag.
You can include my Reviewed-by.
Regards,
Anup
